"Where is my flying car?" I've heard that rhetorical question many times as I'm sure you have. It is a funny joke aimed at the endless hope and fear of technological advance seen in the 70's and 80's where the films never missed a chance to travel to the future where flying cars were in every garage.
Of course we have the technology today to make a flying car if there was a market for them. But the reason no one has a flying car is as simple as 1+1=2. Add the fatality rate for flight crashes with the rate of automobile crashes and you have your answer. Flying cars become the worst of all possible words and incentives go out the door. This does not even mention the potential problems of cost of maintenance and what happens if you are in mid-flight when the engine goes out? Now malfunctions can be physically much more dangerous along with the frustration.
What is the point of this? In thinking about the future of energy and conservation we have to think about incentivizing the process. Electric cars, hybrids, solar panels, recycling, etc. All environmental progress must be viewed through the lens of incentives or in 30 years we'll still be asking "Where's my electric car?"
It all comes down to incentives. Human beings act on them and don't act without them. Our decisions on where to eat, what clothes to wear, whom we date, what movie we watch, all come from incentives. Social, economic, and moral incentives work together and in opposition on our psyches as we battle to answer the big question in life "What do I do now?".
With energy policy, there are so many potential economic incentives to making this a green economy. But they haven't all been fully developed and the danger is pushing some ideas on the public before they are ready to succeed. Ideally, these innovations will take over the market and push out the less eco-friendly competition due to demand rather than mandate.
Think of our transportation history for a moment. The US used to be horses, and carriages. Or just using your feet. This was a very low carbon footprint coupled with a very low efficiency rate. As we move to trains you get a worse carbon footprint and forest is tore down for railroad barons to pave the way for commerce. But this is still not greatly efficient. It could be improved on and when Amtrak is not getting terrible publicity for a derailment they get no press at all. And they just ended up not being as adaptable to the requirements for transportation in the growing US.
Thus came cars. Then cars begat trucks. And trucks begat SUVs. Now the question is this: are SUVs efficient? Only if cost of fuel is low. Does this mean a gas tax or some other punitive measure is a viable incentive to lessen the SUV market? I would argue that is a big "NO". Incentives usually have to be exorbitantly high to have a punitive effect. That is to say that sometimes a small punitive incentive might have the opposite effect. For instance, any moral guilt about harming the environment could be alleviated by the action of paying the gas tax. "See" says the SUV driver, "I may drive an SUV, but I pay for it and that money goes to clean polluted rivers (or whatever)". Also if the incentive is too inexpensive that could reflect poorly on the cause. If the environment is only calculated to be worth a few cents on gas then it must not be that important.
This is why punitive measures are difficult as incentives. In this political and economic environment it is impossible to reach the level of punitive measure that would effectively deter environmental activity that is harmful. Which brings us to Cap and Trade. Which is really a punitive incentive measure that will not work in my opinion. Like all punitive incentives it will absolve some from their moral incentive to not pollute. After all they are doing it legally! We all agreed on it and the experts have put the price on the pollution and they are paying it. So now they are clear of any moral incentive to not pollute. Plus, the punitive measure goes through a political process that makes it minute enough that it will likely encourage more pollution.
Punitive incentives only work if they are duly harsh. In our system we can't muster that political support to make them harsh enough and therefore will end up doing nothing to block pollution at best and actually may encourage additional pollution at worst.
The best way to make changes in the environment and how we use energy in this country is a convergence of moral, economic, and social incentives to push us forward. I believe Al Gore and the environmental movement have made great strides in moving a moral and social consensus towards a green economy. Witness T. Boone Pickens and the evangelical movement getting behind a greener world. But it is a case of the will being there before the technology. The technology is lagging behind such that solar panels are not cost effective for most people. Hybrids are too small to house families and have few cost benefits to the average commuter. Corn ethanol, while not being that clean, also helps cause food shortages and apparently is not good on an engine.
Punitive incentives are the refuge of a society wanting change, but not having the technology to push it through. The problem is that social and moral incentives can move to a consensus, but that consensus is not permanent. It can be squandered. If things like Cap and Trade fail to bring a greener world and simultaneously punish the citizenry with higher costs it will discredit the movement and possibly derail it.
What we need is patience on positive incentives in the economic realm. We should continue to fund and increase funding for energy exploration and innovation. We should abstain from punitive measures of any kind including blocking drilling for oil. It won't be the price of gas that changes things, but the price of the alternatives. Where there is an incentive there is a change.